Image files on a backup HD

charlesvar · 2005/01/08

Created two image files on a backup HD.

Did a defrag analysis of the drive. Never saw files solid red like that. I have been advised not to defrag them because it may cause corruption of the image files.

Volume ME DRIVE (H
Volume size = 18.65 GB
Cluster size = 4 KB
Used space = 5.05 GB
Free space = 13.59 GB
Percent free space = 72 %

Volume fragmentation
Total fragmentation = 42 %
File fragmentation = 85 %
Free space fragmentation = 0 %

File fragmentation
Total files = 8,553
Average file size = 765 KB
Total fragmented files = 2
Total excess fragments = 96
Average fragments per file = 1.01

Pagefile fragmentation
Pagefile size = 0 bytes
Total fragments = 0

Folder fragmentation
Total folders = 1,006
Fragmented folders = 25
Excess folder fragments = 351

Master File Table (MFT) fragmentation
Total MFT size = 9 MB
MFT record count = 9,574
Percent MFT in use = 98 %
Total MFT fragments = 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fragments File Size Most fragmented files
97 416 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.1
91 2.50 GB \D image 010705.tib
84 364 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.5
40 280 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.2
25 104 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html work
16 68 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.3
12 52 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.temp
11 60 KB \D XP Backup\html docs
8 36 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.6
8 32 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\downloaded addresses
8 32 KB \C XP Backup\Favorites\Downloads-shareware\download-sites\Non PT Sites
7 1.80 GB \C image 01010705.tib
7 48 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.temp.4
7 28 KB \C XP Backup\Favorites\downloaded addresses
6 44 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.temp.3
6 24 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\Downloads-shareware\download-sites\Non PT Sites
6 24 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\ME Favorites\security
4 24 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.temp.2
4 16 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\ME Favorites\downloaded software addresses
4 16 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\ME Favorites
4 16 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites
4 16 KB \C XP Backup\Favorites\XP
3 16 KB \D XP Backup\html docs\html.doc.7
3 12 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\Downloads-shareware\download-sites\PT Sites
3 12 KB \D XP Backup\Favorites\XP
3 12 KB \C XP Backup\Favorites\Downloads-shareware\download-sites\PT Sites
3 12 KB \C XP Backup\Favorites\Security

JoeHobart · 2005/01/08

7 fragments on a 2 gig file is pretty good. 91 isnt unreasonable. Whats the concern here? If you defragged the drive before you made the files, you'd experience a lot less fragments.

Rockit · 2005/01/08

Charles,
I know that when I tried defragin my backup image files, on a 2nd partition, they did get corrupted and were trashed. Not a big deal since I just made new ones but if you want to keep the ones you have I would suggest you don't defrag them.

What image program are you using?

The only way I've been able to verify my image files is with the option that comes with most image programs to test the image after you create it.

I don't use windows defragger but Diskeeper does show the image files as different than normal or compressed files.

Good Luck
Rockit

Christer · 2005/01/09

Hi Charles,
I notice that You are an infidel ...... ...... using Acronis True Image ...... ...... !

I don't know how ATI writes images but I don't think it will produce fragmented files, unless it has a reason (other files or file fragments getting in the way).

About defragmentation prior to creating the image(s), well, that makes a difference but only the first time if You follow my advice to not defragment images. The solution for minimizing fragmentation is a drive/partition dedicated to images and nothing else.

Using Ghost on a freshly formated NTFS drive/partition, it produces unfragmented files and fragmented files as I outlined in this post. I have not removed an image file from that drive (yet) but when I do, Ghost will start producing fragmented files because the new file will not fit exactly in the freed space. The image files will be in a few fragments but not close to a hundred fragments.

Using Ghost on a freshly formated FAT32 drive/partition is worse. When creating an image, split in 4 files, Ghost will leave slack space between the files. Subsequent images that are created, will be written in the slack space of the preceeding image, resulting in the first file of the split image being in four fragments (3 slack spaces + the rest).
That is very annoying and I tried a different approach by creating the images to a different drive/partition and then I copied to the desired storage drive/partition. That trick produced unfragmented files without defragmenting. I did an integrity check of the copy prior to deleting the original.
This should be regarded as experimenting because I agree with JoeHobart that a large file in a few fragments is not a big deal and it looks worse than it is (a file in 4 fragments looks a red as a file in 100 fragments).

A lot of mumbo-jumbo but the bottom line is don't mix images and other stuff on the same drive/partition.

Christer

Edited:

"Using Ghost on a freshly formated ..." refers to the target partition, not the source partition.

charlesvar · 2005/01/09

Christer said:

I notice that You are an infidel ...... ...... using Acronis True Image ...... ...... !
Click to expand...

It's not Acronis... It's Apricorn EZ Gig II that came bundled with the external drive cage.

A lot of mumbo-jumbo but the bottom line is don't mix images and other stuff on the same drive/partition.

Why not? The reason for my posting is first, curiousity, never saw fragmentation like this, and second, new to imaging. Will defrag the drive prior to creating the images the next time.

Also keep in mind, if its pertinent, that if and when I resotore an image, it will be by using the other OS to do it.

Regards - Charles

Christer · 2005/01/09

Charles,

It's not Acronis... It's Apricorn EZ Gig II that came bundled with the external drive cage.
Click to expand...

I did a search for "tib" at FilExt and it returned Acronis. I'll go Google on "Apricorn" to see what You've got. Never heard of it.

Why not?
Click to expand...

It was one of the first things I learned about images, keep them separated on a dedicated partition. I have adhered to that recommendation and have never seen the fragmentation levels that You do.

Christer

charlesvar · 2005/01/09

Hi Christer,

Forgot to tell you that right after formating that drive, the very first thing I did was to create image files on that drive w/o anything else on it. It showed up the same way. After that I proceded to put on other normal backups.

So by that evidence, I conclude that is the way .tib files show up.

Regards - Charles

Christer · 2005/01/09

Hi again, Charles!

Had a look in the ez gig II datasheet but it doesn't say much.

The fact that You created the images immediately after formating the partition and the fact that the images get fragmented is a mystery to me.

On my 18 GB E-drive, the beginning of the MFT-zone is located at 2.5-3.0 GB and an image, corresponding to Your largest (not split as I create them), would probably be in a single fragment, maybe two fragments.

Christer

Christer · 2005/02/10

Additional information that may be of interest:

Yesterday, I ran out of space on my G-drive, ~30 GB dedicated to images. It was interesting to see how Ghost handled the situation regarding the reserved MFT-zone.

The MFT-zone starts some 2.5-3 GB into the drive. The MFT-zone is by default 12.5 % of drive space, 3.75 GB in this case.

The unused part of the MFT-zone is included in free space. In this case only 111 kB of the MFT-zone is used.

What happened was that Ghost wrote image files to the end of the drive, then claimed approximately ½ of the MFT-zone (the rearmost part of it) and continued writing there.

Before I create the next image, I will have to delete a few obsolete ones to make space for it and a few subsequent ones. I wonder if Windows will reclaim the lost ½ of the MFT-zone (rhetorical)?

Christer

Christer · 2005/02/15

Before I create the next image, I will have to delete a few obsolete ones to make space for it and a few subsequent ones. I wonder if Windows will reclaim the lost ½ of the MFT-zone (rhetorical)?
Click to expand...

The time for that came today and I deleted all "snapshot" images created after the initial installation of the system and YES, Windows did reclaim the lost part of the MFT-zone. No fragmentation of the new image!

Christer

martinr121 · 2005/02/20

Hey Charles/Christer:

Attaching screen shot of Drive Image 7 Backups on my "F" drive. This drive holds the images as well as some other direct backups of Docs and Pix.

These DI7 backups are scheduled unattended, and there are three there made on different dates.

Does not matter with this program whether newly formatted drive or not, images are always fragmented like this. When I first started using the program I would defragment the drive, but each subsequent backup would look the same. I quit defragmenting them.

I have done a number of image restores using the fragmented images, no problem. Not only that, but if the "C" drive is de-fragmented before imaging, and that image is restored from the fragmented image, the restored drive is not fragmented. Go figure.

Martin

Christer · 2005/02/21

It seems like Ghost isn't as bad, regarding fragmentation of image files, as I thought it was. Ghost actually seems to be the better one.

Ghost skips a number of files that are "one session files ", such as pagefile.sys and hiberfil.sys. It only "notes" the size of these files to be able to recreate them blank. I don't know if the below is a positive side effect of this but creating and restoring a Ghost Image is a simple way to defragment the pagefile.

I was working on a computer with low RAM (192 MB shared with video) and decided to double the size of the pagefile to avoid the constant resizing.

After doubling the size I defragmented, created and restored an image. Screenshot #1 is after doubling and defragmenting, #2 is after creating-restoring the image.

The pagefile is yellow and it not only gets in one contiguous chunk but is also relocated to a faster part of the harddisk/partition.

Christer

martinr121 · 2005/02/21

Hey Christer: I always thought the swap file was the green part of the image?

Anyhow, I just never defrag the dedicated backup drive. Very time consuming, only lasts till the next image. Since it works flawlessly, saved my butt on a number of occasions, I don't see any sense in messing with it.

Just for the heck of it, I ran Norton's Speed Disc on my "C" drive, then checked in Windows Management Console, defrag, it showed a whole bunch of fragments that weren't there before. I seem to remember a discussion on this some time ago, conclusion was: "conflict" don't use it. So I got to run Windows Defrag now.

Can't seem to help myself, got to stop messing with this machine, if it ain't broke, fix it anyhow.

Take care

Martin

surferdude2 · 2005/02/21

Martin, if you do anything at all to the backup drive it should be to verify a few or maybe all of the images by running the verify tool on them.

I do that once in a while and have never found anything wrong so it makes me feel better. Kinda like a warm cup of tea. Or a couple of frozen marguritas.

As you know, I run TI version 6 so YMMV.

All the best.

martinr121 · 2005/02/21

Hi Dude: In DI7, verify image is part of the optional settings. Each image is verified after it is made as part of the process. Like I said, so far, knock on wood, it has worked flawlessly, restoring my "C" and "D" drives (OS & Programs, the only ones I back up with DI 7), approximately 25GB, takes about 20 minutes when booting from the DI Boot disc. So, defragging those images turns out to be a waste of time and effort. I use Karen's Replicator to back up other folders, like Pictures, MPEG files, downloaded program installation folders and redundantly, financials and other special documents.

The only perceptible problem I have run into is clock settings after restore, they seem to get way out of kilter and may have caused some problems.

Maybe you remember a post on this issue that we discussed, but never found an answer for certain.

I don't even remember what the problem was now. With TI, I had several failures, I don't use it as a result.

Take care,

Martin

YMMV??? 'Scuse my ignorance.

I'll take the margaritas, you can have the tea.

surferdude2 · 2005/02/21

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary, which is the standard Detroit disclaimer to explain why you don't get the gas mileage that the window sticker promised. It's come to be used for all thing that may not work the same for one person as another.

Yes, I recall the thread where we discussed trying to create an image file from a TI boot floppy. I couldn't get it done and found that the TI site page actually backed me and said it wasn't possible. Then you gave it a shot and said it worked for you. I think the outcome was that i had an older version (ver. 6) and you had a newer one. Funny they don't changed that web page. I get confused easy enough without their assistance.

I'm off to the goose hair.

Best regards & GN

martinr121 · 2005/02/21

Hey Dude, thanks again, now I remember, I have DI7.

I was just reading another post you were helping out on where you said:

so that any errors that pop up can be used against themselves.
Click to expand...

Thought I'd let you know that this is an interesting concept, can't wait to see it implemented.

GN or GM, whichever is appropriate.

Take care,

Martin

Log in or Sign up

Image files on a backup HD

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

JoeHobart Inactive Alumni

Rockit Inactive

Christer Geek Member Staff

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

Christer Geek Member Staff

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

Christer Geek Member Staff

Christer Geek Member Staff

Christer Geek Member Staff

martinr121 Inactive

Christer Geek Member Staff

martinr121 Inactive

surferdude2 Inactive

martinr121 Inactive

surferdude2 Inactive

martinr121 Inactive

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Image files on a backup HD

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

JoeHobart Inactive Alumni

Rockit Inactive

Christer Geek Member Staff

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

Christer Geek Member Staff

charlesvar Inactive Alumni Thread Starter

Christer Geek Member Staff

Christer Geek Member Staff

Christer Geek Member Staff

martinr121 Inactive

Christer Geek Member Staff

martinr121 Inactive

surferdude2 Inactive

martinr121 Inactive

surferdude2 Inactive

martinr121 Inactive

Share This Page

Useful Searches